THE DE MORTALITATE OF CYPRIAN:
CONSOLATION AND CONTEXT'
BY
J.H.D. SCOURFIELD
I
The publication in 1937 of Charles Favez's monograph, La Consolation latine chretienne,2 opened up a new horizon in the study of ancient
consolatory literature. Though this subject had been one of recurring
interest to scholars during the previous hundred years,3 Favez was the
first to pay serious attention to the Christian contribution to the genre,
and to consider both its relation to and, in particular, its differences
from, the consolatory writing of pagans such as Cicero, Seneca, and
Plutarch. His approach was essentially synchronic. Themes, topics,
expressions, materials found in those Christian texts which formed the
basis of his study were brought together in such a way as to create a
composite picture of Christian consolation, which could be compared
as a whole with the pagan literature. That such an approach has limitations is clear. Favez also drew on a relatively narrow range of texts. As
its title suggests, the book does not consider Christian consolatory
writing in Greek,4 nor does it deal comprehensively with Latin work.5
But it remains a fundamental study, an essential starting-point for
anyone working in the field.
The book is founded on the work of four authors: Jerome, ten of
whose letters may broadly be classified as consolatory;6 Ambrose, from
whom we have two letters of consolation,7 and funeral orations for his
brother Satyrus and the emperors Valentinian II and Theodosius I;8
Paulinus of Nola, author of a letter to the Christian senator Pammachius on the death of his wife Paulina, and of a consolatory poem
to Pneumatius, a relative by marriage;9 and Cyprian, whose De mortalitate, a sermon or tract addressed to the Christian community at Carthage, is presented by Favez as the earliest Christian consolation in
Latin. The diversity of these texts is indicative of the difficulties we face
in defining a consolatory genre; even the letters are highly individual in
character, some of them containing little strictly consolatory or
exhortatory'? material," or possessing other overriding aims.'2 We can
? E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1996
Vigiliae Christianae50, 12-41
THE DE MORTALITA TE OF CYPRIAN
13
perhaps do no better than to classify as consolatory those texts in which
the consolation of the bereaved is one of the author's purposes.'3 For
the most part they draw on a relatively limited common stock of topics
and arguments, a repertoire expanded and adapted by the Christians in
accordance with Christian belief, but often displaying firm links with
the pagan tradition.
Of the texts chosen by Favez as material for his study, the De mortalitate of Cyprian stands out from the rest in a variety of respects. It
predates every other work under scrutiny by more than a century.'4 It
does not respond to the death of a particular individual, but to the
troubles facing a whole community, including mass bereavement. It
stands neither in the epistolographic tradition, nor in that of epideictic
oratory. And as we shall see, the tone of the consolatory portions of the
work is much more stark than is normal in the fourth- and fifth-century
material.
Favez's inclusion of the De mortalitate in his book gave it a firm place
in the history of ancient consolatory writing.'5 But his treatment of it
was later met with a number of criticisms. Thus Alfred Stuiber in 1955:
Mit der Schrift De mortalitate hat Cyprianusdas antike Genus der
Trostschriftin die christ.-lat.Literatureingefiihrt(hierzuCh. Favez... der
zu andern,von den antikenGattungstopoi
freilichdie Unterschiedlichkeit
starktergepragtenchristl. Consolationesnicht geniigendins Licht stellt
... )
16
Another aspect of the difference between the De mortalitate and later
patristic Latin consolation was stressed by Peter von Moos in 1971, in
his huge work on the medieval consolatio.' Associating the De mortalitate, by reason of its stern and rigorous attitude towards the expression of grief, with the letter of an unknown author to one Turasius on
the death of his daughter,'8 which he was inclined to date to the end of
the third century, von Moos wrote of a climate of 'Christian Stoicism'
lying behind Cyprian's sermon, and criticised Favez's view that one of
the features which distinguished Christian from pagan consolation was
the dominance in the former of feeling over reason: the early patristic
evidence would not permit so general a conclusion.'9 The judgements of
both Stuiber and von Moos contain something of the truth. But, as I
shall hope to show, the picture they present is in certain respects
misleading and inaccurate. My aim in this paper is to take a fresh look
at the De mortalitate and to consider how its consolatory character can
14
J.H.D. SCOURFIELD
best be explained. This will involve, inter alia, an examination of
Cyprian's overall purpose in the work, and of the historical situation in
which it belongs; it will necessarily involve a critique of the positions
taken by Stuiber and von Moos. But first it will be appropriate to sketch
the immediate background to the composition of the work, to indicate
Cyprian's principal aims and approaches, and to gather together the
consolatory elements of the treatise.
II
The De mortalitate was written in the midst of the great plague which
broke out in the Roman world in the early 250s.20 Though we cannot
be certain, it seems probable that it represents the published text of a
sermon originally delivered orally to the Christians of Carthage.
Addressed to fratres dilectissimi, by which is probably meant the whole
Christian community,2' the work responds to some of the consequences
of the plague for and within that community. In particular, Cyprian is
concerned to combat the undermining of religious convictions and
appropriate Christian behaviour that the plague has caused. His avowed
aim is set out in the single long sentence which forms the opening
chapter of the treatise. While the faith of most of his audience is as solid
as a rock in the face of the plague,
tamenquia animadvertoin plebequosdamvel inbecillitateanimivel fidei
parvitatevel dulcedinesaecularisvitae vel sexus mollitievel, quod magis
est, veritatiserroreminus stare fortiter nec pectoris sui divinumadque
invictumroburexerere,dissimulandares non fuit nec tacenda,quominus
quantumnostramediocritassufficit vigorepleno et sermonede dominica
lectioneconceptodelicataementisignaviaconprimaturet qui homo Dei et
Christiesse iam coepit Deo et Christodignus habeatur.22
yet I observethat amongthe peopletherearesome who, throughweakness
of spiritor insufficientfaith, or becauseof the sweetnessof the worldlylife
or the tendernessof theirsex, or (whatis worse)throughmakinga mistake
about the truth, standless firm and do not displaythe divineand unconqueredstrengthof their heart. Thereforethis is not a matterfor concealment or silence;I must speak, so that-as far as my limitedpowersare
able-the lethargyof the feeble mind may be checkedby full vigour and
words drawnfrom holy Scripture,and those who have alreadybegun to
belong to God and Christmay be consideredworthyof God and Christ.
(c. 1)
THE DE MORTALITATE OF CYPRIAN
15
A matter of special concern was the fact that some Christians were
troubled by the plague's inability to discriminate between them and the
pagans, an anxiety which Cyprian attempts at some length to dispel in
c. 8. Others presented a quite different problem: far from needing their
faith strengthened, they feared that the plague might deprive them of
the possibility of martyrdom. With this group Cyprian deals in c. 17,
pointing out that martyrdom does not lie within their power, but is in
the gift of God. Then again there were those who had suddenly and
recently been bereaved in the pestilence. Their grief also had to be confronted.
In the early part of the treatise (cc. 2-6) Cyprian's attention is devoted
to the attitude of his audience to their own deaths. For him the plague
presages the end of the terrestrial world and the coming of the kingdom
of heaven, which, for faithful Christians, should be a matter not for
fear but for joy: death will take them to Christ, and they will be rid of
the troubles and dangers which beset them in this world. Cyprian's first
comment relating to bereavement grows out of this context. To support
his case that death is something positive and advantageous, he quotes
Jesus himself:
qui cum discipulieius contristarentur,quod se iam diceret recessurum,
locutus est ad eos dicens: 'si me dilexissetis,gauderetisquoniamvado ad
Patrem',docenset ostendens,cum cari quos diligimusde saeculoexeunt,
gaudendumpotius quam dolendum.
Whenhis disciplesweresaddened,becausehe said that he was now going
to leave them, he said to them, 'If you loved me, you would rejoicethat
I am going to the Father'-teaching and showingus that when the dear
ones whom we love departfrom the world, we shouldrejoiceratherthan
grieve. (c. 7)
The remainder of the chapter does not continue directly with the consolatory thread, though now that the theme has been introduced, what
Cyprian proceeds to say can be seen to have relevance both to his
audience and to the deceased (and is thus an implicit consolation to the
bereaved): death (as he has said before) is a gain, an escape from the
world, the flesh, and the devil, to the joy of eternal salvation.
After dealing with the problem of the plague's affecting pagan and
Christian alike-he points out that as long as they are in the world, and
have not yet put on incorruption and immortality, Christians will
inevitably be subject to all the ills that flesh is heir to; indeed the Christian must labour more than other people, for he has to struggle with the
16
J.H.D. SCOURFIELD
assaults of the devil (cc. 8-9)-Cyprian urges his community to display
patience and fortitude at this time of tribulation (cc. 10-14). In adversity
the Christian is proved, like the potter's vessel in the furnace; the difference between Christians and pagans is that in such circumstances
Christians do not complain but endure. The plague and all its revolting
symptoms, which are graphically listed, serve to prove a Christian's
faith. Clearly Cyprian's objective here is to put some backbone into his
flock in the face of their troubles, and one of his techniques is to cite
from Scripture instances of the kind of fortitude he is calling for. Here
we can see at least a nod in the direction of the bereaved and their grief.
The case of Job is particularly relevant to their situation, for one of
Job's trials-and Cyprian is explicit about this-was the loss of his
children (c. 10). Still more direct is the case of Abraham and Isaac,
which illustrates not only, or even mainly, fortitude in tribulation, but
obedience to the will of God, a theme which comes into greater prominence later in the work. To please God, Abraham was not afraid to lose
his son, or to commit murder;
qui filium non potes lege et sorte mortalitatisamittere,quid faceres, si
filium iubererisoccidere?ad omnia te paratumfaceretimor Dei et fides
debet.
If you cannotlet go of a son by the law and lot of mortality,what would
you do if you were orderedto kill your son? The fear of God and faith
should make you preparedfor anything.(c. 12)
The loss of one's property, the physical effects of disease, separation by
death from one's wife, children, and other loved ones, should not be
stumbling-blocks (scandala) but occasions for battle,
nec debilitentaut frangantchristianifidem,sed potiusostendantin conluctationevirtutem,cumcontemnendasit omnisiniuriamalorumpraesentium
fiducia futurorumbonorum.
nor shouldthey weakenor breaka Christian'sfaith, but rathershow his
couragein the struggle,sinceall the harmcausedby our presentevils is to
be despisedby reasonof our confidencein futurejoys. (c. 12)
To this final contrast I shall return.
Some of what follows can also be regarded as having a consolatory
quality, though again the focus is less on the grief of the bereaved than
on the anxieties of the audience about their own situation, the constant
threat of a sudden and unpleasant death. When Cyprian says
THE DE MORTALITA TE OF CYPRIAN
17
multi ex nostrisin hac mortalitatemoriuntur,hoc est multi ex nostrisde
saeculo liberantur
many of our people are dying in this plague, that is, many of our people
are being liberatedfrom the world (c. 15),
it is a kind of encouragement to the living both on their own account
and on that of their departed loved ones.23 But it is not until c. 20 that
Cyprian seriously confronts the question of the grief that is felt by those
whose relatives and friends have died. The line he takes is perfectly consistent with his approach hitherto:
nobis quoqueipsis minimiset extremisquotiensrevelatumest, quam frequenteradquemanifestede Dei dignationepraeceptumest, ut contestarer
adsidue,ut publicepraedicaremfratresnostrosnon esse lugendosaccersitione dominicade saeculoliberatos,cum sciamusnon amittised praemitti,
recedentespraecedere,ut proficiscentes,ut navigantessolent, desiderari
eos debere,non planginec accipiendasesse hic atrasvestes, quandoilli ibi
indumentaalba iam sumpserint,occasionemdandamnon esse gentilibus,
ut nos meritoac iure reprehendant,quod quos vivereaput Deum dicimus
ut extinctos et perditos lugeamus et fidem quam sermone et voce
depromimuscordis et pectoristestimonionon probemus.
How manytimeshas it beenrevealedalso to me, the leastand last of men,
how frequentlyandplainlyhas the instructionbeengivenby almightyGod,
that I should give continualwitnessand proclaimto all that our brothers
should not be mourned,whenthey have been liberatedfrom the worldat
the Lord'ssummons,sincewe knowthat they havenot been sent awaybut
sent ahead, that as they departthey are leadingthe way; they should not
be lamentedbut missed as people who are setting out on a journey or
voyage are generallymissed, nor should we put on black garb here when
they have already taken up white clothing there, and the opportunity
should not be given to the heathen to rebukeus justly and deservedly,
becausewe say that they are living with God, yet mournthem as if they
weredeadand lost for ever, and fail to proveby the testimonyof our heart
and mind the faith which we expressin words. (c. 20)
The words of the apostle Paul at 1 Thess. 4: 13-14 are used to support
this case. Those who have no hope are grieved at the deaths of their dear
ones;
qui autemspe vivimuset in Deum credimuset Christumpassumesse pro
nobis et resurrexisseconfidimus... quid aut ipsi recedereistinc de saeculo
nolumusaut nostros recedentesquasi perditosplangimusac dolemus?
but we who live in hope and believein God and trustthat Christsuffered
for us and was resurrected... why are we ourselvesunwillingto leave the
world, and why do we mournand grievethe departuresof our loved ones
as though they are lost? (c. 21)
18
J.H.D. SCOURFIELD
At this point Cyprian explicitly unites the two aspects of the situationthe fears of the surviving Christians and their attitude to the deceasedand this double perspective is retained throughout the remainder of this
part of the work, the focus shifting from one aspect to the other, and
sometimes settling on both; the famous words in the book of Wisdom,
for example, 'raptus est ne malitia mutaret intellectum illius',24 frequently used in a consolatory way in later consolationes,25 are presented
here in a context and a manner which allow them to be applied both to
those who have already died and to those who still face the risk of an
early death (c. 23). Finally, Cyprian calls on his listeners to be firm,
courageous, and obedient to God's will, and to set their sights on eternal
life:
potius, fratresdilectissimi,menteintegra,fide firma,virtuterobustaparati
ad omnem voluntatemDei simus, pavoremortis excluso immortalitatem
quae sequiturcogitemus.hoc nos ostendamusesse quod credimus,ut nec
carorumlugeamus excessumet cum accersitionispropriaedies venerit
incunctanteret libenterad Dominumipso vocante veniamus.
Rather, beloved brothers,let us with pure hearts, unbendingfaith, and
stout couragebe preparedfor everywish of God; shuttingout the fear of
death, let us contemplatethe immortalitywhich follows it. Let us show
that this is whatwe believe,so that we do not mournthe departureof our
dear ones, and that when the day of our own summonsarrives,we come
to the Lord at his call gladly and withouthesitation.(c. 24)
The last two chapters (25-26) are a kind of summation of the arguments
used by Cyprian to strengthen the faith and courage of his audience: the
world is in collapse, and we should be grateful if we are extracted from
it before our time; while on the other side, heaven, our true home, waits
for us. There is some consolation for the bereaved in the notion (c. 26)
that a great number of their loved ones are awaiting their arrival; but
attention here is concentrated very much on the personal future of the
living, not on their grief.
This summary should be sufficient to indicate that, as far as consolation is concerned, Cyprian's approach in the De mortalitate is to speak
to the head, not to the heart. He utters no expression of sympathy, and
is uncompromising in his rejection of grief as inappropriate for Christians. His position is that if the basic Christian premises are accepted,
there is no room for grief. Christians should be glad if their loved ones
have died, escaped the miseries of life on earth, and entered heaven; to
grieve is to deny the faith. Only a single concession is granted to the
THE DE MORTALITA TE OF CYPRIAN
19
bereaved:that those who have died may be missed(desiderari),'ut proficiscentes,ut navigantessolent' (c. 20).
This approachis strikinglydifferent from that found in most consolatorywriting,whetherpagan or Christian.If classic Stoic teaching,
with its emphasison reason,maintainedthat grief was irrationaland to
be suppressed,it had little impact on consolation in practice. The
predominantview in the extantpagantexts is that whilegrief shouldnot
be indulgedin, and a limit shouldbe set to it, a certainamountof grief
is permissible,even desirable.Cicero, for example, writingto Brutus
after Porcia'ssuicide,says that to grieveat such a loss is necessary,for
and even Seneca, with his
insensibilitymay be still more distressing;26
that
there
a
Stoic
is
views, grants
mainly
placefor tearsin moderation.27
Equally, the expressionof sympathywas so acceptedan ingredientof
consolationthat it found a place in rhetoricalprecepton consolatory
writing.28Most Christianconsolationis very muchin this mould.29It is
true that a tension can sometimesbe observedbetweenthe feelings of
grief that Christiansexperienceand their recognitionthat the person
mournedis in heavenand so ought not to be mourned30
(in termsof the
logic of belief, there was more reason for pagans-whose belief in the
afterlife tended to be at best shadowyand uncertain-to mourn their
dead than for Christians),but the dilemmawas capableof solution:the
griefcould be held (quitesensiblyand realistically)to be not for the condition of the deceased, but for that of the bereaved themselves,
separatedfrom their loved one by his or her death.3'The Bible-centred
culture of early Christianityalso gave Christiansan advantageover
pagans in dealingwith grief, in that amid the argumentsfurnishedby
Scripturefor rejectinggrief could be found precedentsfor admittingit.
While precedentsfrom the Old Testamentcould be problematic(early
Christianeschatologymaintainedthat until the opening of heaven to
believingsouls at Christ'sresurrection,the souls of the dead remained
in a kind of underworld or limbo ("At8rS,infernus);32though this might
admitof degreesof comfortand discomfort,foreshadowingthe joys of
heavenand the tormentsof hell, heavenitself was out of reach;33thus
it could be argued that in those days grief at a person's death was
appropriate,whereasfollowingChrist'sresurrection,whenthe prospect
for the faithful was no longer infernusbut heaven, it was not34),New
Testamentmaterialwas availablewhich containedno such difficulties.
Best of all was the case of Jesus himself weepingfor Lazarus,before
raisinghim back to life.35Ambrose,Augustine,Paulinusof Nola, and
20
J.H.D. SCOURFIELD
Jerome all cite this incident to legitimise a certain amount of grief;36
indeed, Jerome even uses it to justify his own grief in his letter to Paula
on the death of her daughter Blesilla, in which he is strongly critical of
Paula's excessive mourning and offers her rebuke no less than consolation.37 Such material Cyprian ignores, though his approach throughout
the De mortalitate is to base his arguments firmly on Scripture, which
he frequently cites directly. That is to say, it would have been easy for
Cyprian, and totally in accord with his attitude towards Scripture, to
have given some comfort by way of allowing room for the expression
of grief, if he had wanted to. Why Cyprian chose to proceed in a quite
different way has now to be considered.
III
I begin with the idea mentioned earlier38that the consolatory character of the De mortalitate can be explained in terms of a supposed climate
of 'Christian Stoicism' which lay behind it. This expression has frequently been used in connection with this text39without, however, being
properly examined. As a broad descriptive term, evoking in modern
readers notions of fortitude, self-control, and indifference to pain or
pleasure, it may be held to characterise the tone of the work with some
success. As an analytic term, it is patently unsatisfactory, indeed
dangerously misleading. Marcia L. Colish has indicated, I believe
rightly, that, for all the attempts to demonstrate the contrary, there is
little genuine Stoic material in Cyprian.40The De mortalitate is one of
the few texts where Colish detects such material: in it 'Cyprian adverts
to two Stoic ethical principles ... the tranquillity resulting from the conceptualization of passing woes such as plagues as adiaphora and the
magnitudo animi that enables the wise man to confront and to overcome tests of virtue of this type'; but, as she proceeds to observe, these
notions have been fully assimilated to a Christian argument.41Cyprian
could draw on Stoicism to bolster or embroider a case, but he was no
Stoic. Let us, however, ignore for a moment the inaccuracy of the
expression, and consider the notion of a climate of thought believed to
have influenced Cyprian in this work-a climate promoting a cold,
cerebral attitude to Christian bereavement and grief. The idea is not
exclusive to von Moos. J. Fontaine,42 criticising the view of H. Koch
that Cyprian displays a considerable direct debt to Seneca,43saw at the
back of Cyprian's work in general 'un climat stoicien de la pensee chre-
THE DE MORTALITATE OF CYPRIAN
21
tienne, commun aux ecrivains des IIeme et IIIeme siecle(s)'. Even
though Cyprian's work shows few traces of Stoicism proper, might not
his thought have been influenced by a prevailing atmosphere of a Stoical
character within Christianity? Perhaps. But the notion of a climate of
thought is a vague one, its existence not always easy to prove, and its
range of operation impossible to establish precisely;" and it is all too
easy to have recourse to the idea in seeking an explanation for the consolatory character of the De mortalitate and the letter to Turasius with
which von Moos associates it." Before doing so, we should see if good
internal and situation-specific reasons for the approach to consolation
adopted in these texts can be found.
In the case of the letter to Turasius, this is difficult. We know too little about the circumstances of its composition to make informed
hypotheses about the reasons for its author's extraordinary severity
towards his bereaved correspondent. Preserved in the corpora of both
Cyprian and Jerome,4 but patently the work of neither of them, this
letter is unparalleled in the depth of its feeling that grief is inappropriate
for Christians; indeed, no ancient letter of consolation, pagan or Christian, shows such a lack of human sensibility as is found here. The opening lines state the author's fundamental message with shattering
directness:
caritatistuae scriptapercepi,quibusanimumtuum dolore commotumde
filiae dormitionecognovi. non aliud principaliteradmiratussum quam
christianipectoris in te iactatam fuisse virtutemut animum flexeris ad
dolorem. stupeo murum fidei penetratumvulneribusorbitatis, quem
saepiredebueratspes resurrectioniset regnicaelestis.numquamspes cum
dolore concordatnec fides aliquandosentit quamcumqueiacturam.
I have receivedyour letter,my dearTurasius,in whichI learnedthat your
daughter'spassinghas afflictedyourmindwith grief. Whatastonishedme
most of all was that the courageof your Christianhearthad been shaken
so muchthat you shouldturnyour mindto sorrow.I am shockedthat the
wall of faith has beenbreachedby the woundsof your bereavement,when
the hope of resurrectionand of the kingdomof heavenshould have protected it. Hope and grief never go together,nor does faith ever feel any
loss. (274.21-275.3)
The arguments set out in the following pages include a breathtakingly
tendentious interpretation of the incident of Jesus weeping for Lazarus;
far from using this to justify a measure of grief, the author claims that
Jesus wept because he had to recall Lazarus to the life of this world:47
22
J.H.D. SCOURFIELD
doluit Lazarumnon dormientem,sed potius resurgentem,et flebat quem
cogebaturproptersalvandosalios saeculo revocare.
he mournedLazarusnot becausehe had fallen asleepbut ratherbecause
he was comingback to life, and wept for the man whom he was obliged
to summonback to the world for the sake of savingothers. (276.9-12)
It is hardly too much to see in this letter the hand of a fanatic, whose
intense commitment to basic Christian doctrine on death and resurrection left no room for emotion; a belief based on faith is maintained with
a rigid rationality to the point of absurdity.
Several attempts have been made to establish the date and authorship
of the letter to Turasius. The most detailed study of the piece, that of
J. Duhr,48attributes it to the Spanish monk Bachiarius, writing around
the year 385. G. de Plinval saw Pelagian influence behind it, and conjectured that the author might be Pelagius' pupil Caelestius.49In the view
of G.W. Clarke all four pseudo-Cyprianic letters are Donatist
forgeries.50 Von Moos associated the content of the letter with anteNicene apologetic, and suggested a late third-century date, in the period
following the edict of toleration of Gallienus;51 he also accepted the
arguments of B. Melin52that the letter was written by the same person
as the De singularitate clericorum, another work falsely attributed to
Cyprian. A thorough examination of the De singularitate led P.
Schepens53to the conclusion that this text was composed in the middle
of the third century; Schepens argued further, though tentatively, that
the author may have been Lucius, bishop of Rome 253-4. If this date
for the De singularitate, and Melin's identification of its author with the
author of the letter to Turasius, could be accepted, we would have the
intriguing possibility that a climate of thought specific to the 250s was
responsible for the consolatory character of the Turasius letter and the
De mortalitate. But Melin's case for the identity of authorship, based
on similarities of language, style, and rhythm in the two works, is not
iron-clad; and other dates have been proposed for the De singularitate.54
In any event, proof that the letter to Turasius was composed around the
same time as the De mortalitate would do no more than strengthen the
suggestion that Cyprian's approach to consolation in his sermon was
derived from a prevailing atmosphere rather than from reasons specific
to the circumstances of composition and to Cyprian's other purposes in
the work.
We should remind ourselves at this point that Cyprian's primary aim
in the De mortalitate is not to offer consolation but to strengthen the
THE DE MORTALITA TE OF CYPRIAN
23
Christian community of Carthage, buckling under the weight of the
troubles brought by the plague. The perhaps natural propensity to lose
faith in a benevolent God when catastrophe strikes will have been intensified by pagan allegations that it was Christian neglect of the traditional gods of Rome that was responsible for the disaster of the plague;
it is this claim that Cyprian has to combat in the Ad Demetrianum.55
The Christians had in any case been embattled before the plague's
arrival. It followed close on the heels of the first really thorough
persecution, that instituted by the Emperor Decius late in 249 or early
in 250.56 Decius' edict, which required all Roman citizens, or perhaps
all inhabitants of the Empire,57to sacrifice to the gods, may not have
been a direct attack on Christianity;58but it was the Christians whom
the edict threatened most of all. Fabianus, bishop of Rome, met a martyr's death in January 250;59and many Christians, in fear for their lives,
lapsed, either complying with the demand or purchasing certificates
which attested that they had done so when in fact they had not.60 The
persecution had already waned when Decius died in June 251, and there
is no firm evidence for a renewed persecution under his successor,
Trebonianus Gallus;6' yet the atmosphere of the De mortalitate and the
Ad Demetrianum is one of expectation that persecution might recur at
any moment.62 That the fabric of Christian society at Carthage was
under threat can occasion no surprise.
The attempt to understand the De mortalitate in the light of its
historical context must also consider the position of Cyprian himself at
this time. The date of composition of the work cannot be established
precisely. The plague, set by ancient authorities in the reigns of Gallus
and Volusianus (June 251-May 253),63 appears to have reached Rome
by the late summer or autumn of 251;64it is generally accepted that it
will have struck Carthage not later than the summer of 252, and the De
mortalitate is commonly placed in that year.65There is, however, some
reason to think that it may belong not to 252 but to 253.66 The sense
of coming persecution and the associated mood of foreboding about the
end of the world,67 apparent also in the Ad Demetrianum,68 link the
work with Cyprian's Letters 57 and 58, which are best (though not certainly) dated to that year.69For the purposes of my argument it is not
necessary to defend the choice of one year over the other; we are
required only to recognise the possibility that the De mortalitate was
written as late as the middle of 253.
The preceding years had presented Cyprian with continual dif-
24
J.H.D. SCOURFIELD
ficulties. His election to the episcopate in 248 or 249,70 only a few years
after his conversion, had not met with universal approval at Carthage.
It was opposed by a group of presbyters,71perhaps prompted by resentment that a Christian of such short standing should gain the episcopal
seat. Their hostility did not wane after the election was done. Nor did
Cyprian do himself any favours in the Decian persecution by fleeing
Carthage and going into hiding. The justifications offered by Cyprian
and by his biographer Pontius for this action bear all the marks of
rationalisation.72 His motives were brought into question, his flight
criticised by the clergy of Rome.73 When he returned to Carthage after
Easter 251,74 following an absence of more than a year,75it was to face
a monumental problem of Church discipline: what was to be done about
the vast numbers of Christians who had lapsed in the persecution? The
question was intimately bound up with ecclesiastical power-politics.
During his absence from the city Cyprian had initially taken a rigorous
line on reconciling the lapsed with the Church, holding that no action
should be taken until peace had been restored and it was possible to hold
a Church council to consider the issue. This stand was exploited by his
opponents among the clergy in Carthage, who attempted to undermine
his position by readmitting the lapsed to communion without waiting
for such a council and without insisting on due penitential procedure.76
In the summer of 250 Cyprian moved a short way towards a more
relaxed policy, first allowing that those among the lapsed who had been
granted certificates of forgiveness by martyrs should be reconciled if
they were in danger of death, and then lifting the restriction of the provision to the holders of certificates.77This stance matched that taken by
the still bishopless clergy in Rome.78 But opposition persisted. Early in
251 the anti-Cyprian faction at Carthage found a new leader in the
deacon Felicissimus.79Readmission of the lapsed on easy terms gained
a new impetus;80worse, Felicissimus threatened a complete split in the
Carthaginian church.8' Though excommunicated by the ecclesiastical
commission which Cyprian had recently appointed to administer the
diocese in his absence,82he was to remain a danger in the months which
followed.
After his return to Carthage Cyprian set out, in the De lapsis and the
De ecclesiae catholicae unitate, his position on the reconciliation of the
lapsed and on episcopal authority. At a Church council which met
during that summer Felicissimus was condemned, together with the five
presbyters who had opposed Cyprian from the beginning.83 On the
THE DE MORTALITA TE OF CYPRIAN
25
lapsed, the council came to a something of a compromise decision,
though closer to the views of Cyprian than to those of the lapsists: those
who had performed pagan sacrifices during the persecution (the
sacrificati) were to be excluded from communion save at the point of
death, while those who had purchased certificates attesting that they
had sacrificed when in fact they had not (the libellatici) were to be readmitted to the Church following individual examination.84 This shift to
a more lenient position can only have had the effect of weakening further the faction of Felicissimus.
The difficulties which Cyprian had faced, however, also involved
relations with Rome. Over a year elapsed between the execution of
Fabianus and the election of a new bishop. While in exile, Cyprian had
had contacts with an influential Roman presbyter, Novatianus, who had
shared Cyprian's rigorous views on the lapsed.85 Novatianus had good
reason to expect that he would succeed to the episcopate. But perhaps
because of his stance on the lapsed, his bid failed, the see passing into
the hands of Cornelius (March 251).86 One of the five presbyters
opposed to Cyprian at Carthage, Novatus, made capital out of this
situation. Having gone to Rome to win support for his group (we may
presume), he pressed Novatianus to organise his own election as
counter-bishop to Cornelius. Though doctrinally at the opposite end of
the spectrum from Novatianus on the matter of the lapsed, Novatus
stood to gain at least some benefit from the association. Cornelius
would have made a better ally, but he could not risk alienating Cyprian;
the recruitment of Novatianus was a good second-best, for it would
embarrass Cyprian and give the faction a powerful and educated supporter in Rome, whose prestige might be of benefit in the battle being
waged within the Church in Carthage. Novatianus responded positively,
and found three bishops to consecrate him.87
Cyprian allowed himself time for careful reflection before recognising
Cornelius as legitimate bishop of Rome.88 He undermined Novatianus'
position by pressing a prestigious group of confessors at Rome to switch
their allegiance to Cornelius, a step they proceeded to take.89His rival's
power-base weakened, Cornelius was able to move strongly against him,
and Novatianus was excommunicated.90
Novatus' failure with Novatianus, and the decision of the African
council of 251, did not, however, see the end of opposition to Cyprian
at Carthage. In 252 we find both lapsist and Novatianist anti-bishops
in the city. The former, Fortunatus, had been one of Novatus'
26
J.H.D. SCOURFIELD
associates in the group of five presbyters;91upon his consecration,
Felicissimus led a delegation to Rome to inform Cornelius of the fact,
no doubt looking for his support.92Around the same time, Novatianus
set up one of his followers, the presbyter Maximus, as a second rival
bishop to Cyprian.93 The evidence does not suggest that Maximus'
appointment was a serious threat to Cyprian; but the lapsists were
plainly still a thorn in his flesh. Though in the event Felicissimus' mission to Cornelius was unsuccessful, Letter 59 makes clear that Cyprian
was seriously disturbed by it. Thereafter Felicissimus vanishes from
the most likely
Cyprian's correspondence, but as it was-by
in
an
253
that
was
issued
reckoning94-only
amnesty
by the Church at
Carthage to all the penitent lapsed, the lapsist party must have continued to exercise attraction over a significant element of the Christian
population there. Indeed, it is possible that Cyprian still faced opposition from them as late as 254.95
It should be apparent from this brief summary of ecclesiastical
politics in the first years of Cyprian's episcopate that there was never
a time when Cyprian could rest assured that his position was secure. The
arrival of the plague can only have increased his sense of instability.
Though, in order to be consecrated at all, he must have had support
among the clergy, it was to the massed laity that he owed his election
as bishop.96 Apostasy and the plague will have eroded this power-base.
When the plague struck, Cyprian's duty as a bishop required him to
take the weakening Christian community by the scruff of the neck and
somehow get it back into line. This was for the good of each individual
soul, and of the church of Carthage as a whole. It was also for the good
of Cyprian himself. His authority, constantly challenged in any case,
relied on a church that was strong and unified, not one that was breaking up. It seems entirely reasonable to suppose that personal as well as
pastoral considerations underlay Cyprian's purpose in the De mortalitate.
In attempting to strengthen and unite the Christian community
Cyprian employs a variety of tactics. He seeks to inspire patience and
fortitude by Scriptural example, and by presenting the plague as a test.
He also tempts his audience into a firmer, more committed stance
within the Church by turning their minds to the glories of heaven and
contrasting this with the miseries of life on earth. A third tactic has
perhaps been insufficiently appreciated. Early in the work, Cyprian
declares that the Lord foretold the arising at different places of war,
famine, earthquake, and pestilence (c. 2). He continues:
THE DE MORTALITA TE OF CYPRIAN
27
magis ac magis in novissimis temporibus adversa crebrescereante
praemonuit.fiunteccequaedictasunt, et quandofiunt quaeantepraedicta
sunt sequenturet quaecumquepromissasunt Domino ipso pollicenteet
dicente:'cumautemvideritishaecomniafieri, scitotequoniamin proximo
est regnumDei'. regnumDei, fratresdilectissimi,esse coepit in proximo:
praemiumvitaeet gaudiumsalutisaeternaeet perpetualaetitiaet possessio
paradisinuperamissamundotranseunteiam veniunt:iam terreniscaelestia
et magna parvis et caducis aeterna succedunt. quis hic anxietatis et
sollicitudinislocus est? quis interhaec trepiduset maestusest nisi cui spes
et fides deest?eius est enim mortemtimerequi ad Christumnolit ire. eius
est ad Christumnolle ire qui se non credatcum Christoincipereregnare.
The Lord forewarnedthat troubleswould increasemore and more in the
last times. Look! Whatwas statedis happening,and whenthe thingswhich
were predictedcome to pass, what was promisedshall also follow. The
Lordhimselfmadethis promise:'Whenyou see all this happening,be sure
that the kingdom of God is at hand.' The kingdom of God, dearest
brothers,has begunto be at hand;the prizeof life and the joy of eternal
salvationand perpetualhappinessand the possessionof paradisethat was
but lately lost are now arrivingas the worldpassesaway;heavenlythings
are now succeedingearthlyones, small is yieldingto great, the ephemeral
to the eternal.Whatplaceis herefor worryand anxiety?Amidall this, who
is tremblingand sorrowfulexceptthe personwho lackshope and faith? It
is for him to fear death who is unwillingto go to Christ.It is for him to
be unwillingto go to Christwho does not believethat he is beginningto
reign with Christ. (c. 2)
Now we have no reason to suppose that Cyprian's apocalyptic views
were not genuinely held. They appear elsewhere in his writings.97But in
the present situation they are also a convenient tactic. To emphasise that
the end of the world is nigh can to some extent bring comfort: the
miseries of life will soon be over, and those who trust in God can rest
secure in the belief that they will indeed shortly see Christ and be
reunited with their deceased relatives and friends. But it can also inspire
fear. For those who may suspect that the lives they have lived have been
less than adequate for a Christian, the imminent arrival of the end of
the world will not have been an attractive prospect. In talking of such
things-and in drawing attention to the very possibility of fear at the
prospect (had he wished, he could have spoken only of the joy awaiting
in heaven)-Cyprian is likely to have concentrated the mind wonderfully, and better than he could have done by reference to the plague
alone. Death by pestilence may be avoided; there is no escaping the end
of the world. Though Cyprian couches what he says here in indirect,
third-person terms, there is no doubt that the backsliders will have
recognised themselves.
28
J.H.D. SCOURFIELD
Later, the threat of eternal damnation is made more explicitly. The
plague and all its ghastly symptoms serve as a test of Christian faith:
contratot inpetusvastitatiset mortisinconcussisanimivirtutibuscongredi
quantapectorismagnitudoest, et quantasublimitasinter ruinashumani
generisstarerectumnec cum eis quibusspes in Deumnullaest iacereprostratum.
What stoutness of heart it is to contend against all those assaults of
devastationand death with the qualitiesof one's soul unshaken,what
exaltationto standerectamidthe ruinsof the humanraceand not lie prostratewith those who have no hope in God. (c. 14)
Those who endure in this way have no reason to fear death; for others
it is different:
moriplanetimeat,sed qui ex aquaet spiritunon renatusgehennaeignibus
mancipatur.mori timeatqui non Christicruceet passionecensetur.mori
timeatqui ad secundammortemde hac mortetransibit.moritimeatquem
de saeculorecedentemperennibuspoenis aeternaflammatorquebit.mori
timeatcui hoc moralongioreconfertur,ut cruciatuseius et gemitusinterim
differatur.
Death indeedis to be feared, but by the man who, not havingbeen born
againfromwaterand the spirit,is deliveredup to the firesof hell. Let him
fear to die who is not enrolledunderthe crossand sufferingof Christ.Let
him fear to die who from this death will pass to a seconddeath. Let him
fear to die whom, on his departurefrom the world, the eternalflame will
torture in perpetualpunishment.Let him fear to die to whom this is
grantedafter a lengthy delay, so that his tormentsand groans may be
postponedfor a while. (c. 14)
This terrifying picture is soundly reinforced by the rhetorical repetition
of the phrase mori timeat. Cyprian's message is plain: endure the
plague, prove your faith, and you will gain your due reward, and have
nothing to fear from death. But the torments of hell lie in wait for those
who do not respond to what is required of them.
One of the techniques used by Cyprian to hold together the Christians
of Carthage at this time is thus the arousal of fear for their immortal
souls. That is to say, at the same time as he reminds them of the bliss
that lies in store for the faithful, he disquiets them with the thought of
its opposite. Part of his technique is to discomfort. In this a reason for
the kind of consolation Cyprian offers in the work may be discernible.
In as much as he seeks to disturb the backsliders in his community, it
makes no sense for him to be lavish in consoling them. The Christian
truth of eternal life for the faithful is firmly underlined. To go further,
THE DE MORTALITA TE OF CYPRIAN
29
to express sympathy and permit grief, to 'hold', as we might say, the
bereaved in their suffering, would in some sense be to undo the effect
of the discomforting.
But with or without the terror tactics, the evocation of the end of the
world and the fires of hell, Cyprian's rigorous attitude towards the
expression of grief should occasion no surprise in its context. The
general setting is of the greatest importance. Cyprian, as bishop, is
addressing his community, the Gemeinde. The situation is one of
peculiar difficulty. First persecution, now plague, and fears of further
persecution lurking in the background. Speaking as bishop to people,
and in such circumstances, Cyprian is called upon above all to deliver
appropriate Christian teaching. The nature of the teaching demanded is
perfectly clear. As we have seen, Cyprian warns his people of the
torments of hell. He also tells them that the earth is a place of pain,
trouble, and danger; a place of storms (c. 3), a place where every day
Christians have to fight against the devil and his armoury (c. 4). Nor is
it a Christian's real home. Life on earth is captivitas (c. 18); the true
Christian patria is paradise (c. 26). But earthly life is of only temporary
duration; the sufferings of the faithful will be brought to an end, to be
succeeded by everlasting joy. The promises of God are very much in
Cyprian's mind throughout. It seems to him absurd that people should
fear death and cling to the world:
Deus de hoc mundo recedenti inmortalitatem adque aeternitatem
pollicetur,et dubitas?
God promisesyou immortalityand eternitywhenyou leavethis world,and
you hesitate?(c. 6)
The point to bring out here is this. For Cyprian, God's promise of a
blissful future renders earthly sufferings of no account. Let us recall a
passage cited earlier:
contemnendasit omnis iniuria malorumpraesentiumfiducia futurorum
bonorum.
all the harmcausedby our presentevils is to be despisedby reasonof our
confidencein futurejoys. (c. 12)
Our attempt to understand Cyprian's approach to consolation in this
work requires us to take this statement seriously. It is related by him
specifically to the loss of loved ones in the plague. If we give it weight,
the implication is clear. From the perspective of the bishop instructing
30
J.H.D. SCOURFIELD
his flock, loss, and the grief resulting from it, are of minimal
significance; sympathy and consolation are thus not called for. Though
Cyprian does not cite it in this work, the underlying thought may owe
something to Romans 8, where Paul writes that our sufferings are slight
in comparison with our future glory (8: 18 'non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam quae revelabitur in nobis'),
and that nothing can separate us from the love of Christ, including (we
should observe) persecutio and periculum (8: 35). It is perhaps significant that the first of these passages is cited by Cyprian in the Ad
Quirinum, a compilation of Biblical testimonia under various heads put
together probably before 250,98under the heading 'minora esse quae in
saeculo patimur quam sit praemium quod promissum est' ('the things
we suffer in the world are of less account than the promised reward';
Quir. 3.17).99
Another section of the Ad Quirinum, to which attention was drawn
in connection with the De mortalitate by Stuiber,'??is still more significant. In this section Cyprian collects Scriptural texts under the heading
'neminem contristari morte debere, cum sit in vivendo labor et
periculum, in moriendo pax et resurgendi securitas' ('no one should be
made sorrowful by death, for in life there is toil and danger, but in
death peace and the certainty of resurrection'; Quir. 3.58). Eight of the
thirteen texts there collected recur, in quotation or by allusion, in the
De mortalitate. Cyprian's attitude in our treatise is thus quite consistent
with that expressed in the earlier, non-consolatory work. A very similar
position was taken half a century earlier by Tertullian in the De patientia. In this tract Tertullian strongly criticises grief at the death of loved
ones. Paul, he says, forbids us to be grieved when someone dies, like
the pagans who have no hope;
et merito:credentesenim < in > resurrectionem
Christiin nostramquoque
credimuspropterquos ille et obiit et resurrexit.ergo cum constetde resurrectionemortuorum,vacatdolor mortis ... cur enim doleassi periissenon
credis?cur inpatienterferas subductuminterimquem credisreversurum?
profectioest quamputasmortem.non est lugendusqui anteceditsed plane
desiderandus.id quoque desideriumpatientia temperandum:cur enim
inmoderateferas abisse quem mox subsequeris?
and rightly:for believingin Christ'sresurrectionwe also believe in our
own, for it was for us that he died and rose again. And so sincethe resurrectionof the deadis established,thereis no room for griefat death ... For
why grieveif you do not believethat a personhas perished?Why should
you be impatientthat someonehas been stolen awayfor a whilewhenyou
THE DE MORTALITA TE OF CYPRIAN
31
believethat he will return?What you take to be death is merelya departure. He who goes beforeyou is not to be mournedbut simplymissed.And
that sense of missingis to be temperedwith patience;for why shouldyou
take it excessivelybadlythat a personhas gone away when you will soon
follow? (pat. 9.2-3).
The contrast between mourning (lugere) and longing (desiderare) is
apparent also in c. 20 of the De mortalitate, and in tone our text closely
resembles the Tertullian passage. The position adopted by Cyprian in
both the Ad Quirinum and the De mortalitate, and by Tertullian in the
De patientia, is in a sense theoretical. The doctrine is based firmly on
the logic of Christian belief, without regard to the realities of human
experience. In terms of this logic, Christians do not need to be consoled
upon the death of loved ones who are also Christian; the De mortalitate,
regarded in its consolatory aspect, thus takes on the character of an
anticonsolatio. This is exactly what we should have expected of
Cyprian, the bishop and leader of his community, instructing them at
a time of special crisis.
IV
In this paper I have attempted to demonstrate that the consolatory
character of Cyprian's De mortalitate is explicable in terms of the social
setting of the work and its precise historical context, the situation of the
Church in Carthage and the difficulties besetting Cyprian himself. I
have argued that there is no need to see a particular climate of thought
at the back of it, as von Moos and others have suggested.'10Nor is there
any reason to suppose that early Christian consolation in Latin was fundamentally different in its attitude to grief from later consolation, as
von Moos implies. The facts are that we have only two texts,'02 one of
which (the letter to Turasius) cannot be securely dated, while the rigour
of the other, the De mortalitate, is (so I maintain) completely understandable in the situation to which it belongs, and would be no less so
in the fourth century or any other period in which similar circumstances
appeared. The point is that Cyprian is not writing a letter of condolence
to a bereaved friend, or delivering a speech before grieving relatives at
a funeral, or speaking personally to a fellow-Christian who had lost a
loved one. Cyprian was a human being as well as a bishop, and there
are no good grounds for believing that he would have followed in circumstances of this kind the approach he adopts for very special reasons
32
J.H.D. SCOURFIELD
in the De mortalitate. This text is not evidence that an absence of sympathy and an insistence on reason would have informed his utterances
in ordinary circumstances of bereavement.
The assertions of von Moos about the character of the De mortalitate
and the importance of this for our understanding of Christian Latin
consolation thus call for careful qualification. Similarly, the observations of Stuiber'03need to be modified and elaborated. First, the claim
that Cyprian introduced into Christian Latin literature 'the ancient
genre of the Trostschrift' is misleading. As I have pointed out above,104
a consolatory genre can at best be loosely defined, and while the consolatory portions of Cyprian's work have connections with earlier
(pagan) consolatory writing, these amount to no more than a few mostly
commonplace topics and expressions;'05consolation is only a subsidiary
aim, and Cyprian owes nothing to past consolers in the matter of form.
Thus while the De mortalitate offers the first example in Christian Latin
literature of consolation in practice, we should not overestimate the
significance of this. More importantly, Stuiber's stress on the difference
between the De mortalitate and other Christian consolationes 'more
strongly moulded by the ancient topics of the genre' gives a distorted
picture, for it takes no account of context. The consolation which
Cyprian offers in the work is (to reiterate) shaped by the setting and his
other, more critical concerns; his comfort is the cool, cerebral comfort
of Christian truth. Such a standpoint puts beyond use much of the traditional consolatory material employed by his pagan predecessors and his
Christian successors alike.
NOTES
' A
primitive version of this paper was presented at the 18th Biennial Conference of the
Classical Association of South Africa at Rhodes University in January 1989 (abstract in
AClass 32 (1989), 133-4); a more evolved version at the University of Western Ontario in
April 1991, thanks to the kind offices of Professor D.E. Gerber. I am grateful to Professor Gerber and his colleagues for providing a most congenial forum for me to try out
my ideas, and for their comments. I also wish to thank Professor Albrecht Dihle and Dr
Flora Manakidu for discussions which helped me to clarify my thoughts on this subject.
The paper is dedicated to the memory of Eric Ashby (1904-92), Thomas James Davies
(1917-93), and John Godfrey Griffith (1913-91), to all of whom I owe so much.
2
3
Paris, 1937.
The important general studies are those of A.C. van Heusde, Diatribe in locum
philosophiae moralis qui est de consolatione apud Graecos (Utrecht, 1840), A. Gercke,
THE DE MORTALITA TE OF CYPRIAN
33
'De consolationibus', Tirociniumphilologum sodalium Regii Seminarii Bonnensis (Berlin,
1883), 28-70, C. Buresch, 'Consolationum a Graecis Romanisque scriptarum historia
critica', Leipziger Studien zur classischen Philologie, 9 (1886), 1-170, and C. Martha, 'Les
Consolations dans l'Antiquite', in his Etudes morales sur l'Antiquite (4th edn., Paris,
1905), 135-89.
4 There is no
all-embracing study of the Greek material. The Cappadocian Fathers are
well served by R.C. Gregg, Consolation Philosophy: Greek and Christian Paideia in Basil
and the Two Gregories (Patristic Monograph Series, 3; Cambridge, Mass., 1975); other
useful work includes J.F. Mitchell, 'Consolatory Letters in Basil and Gregory Nazianzen',
Hermes, 96 (1968), 299-318, L. Malunowicz6wna, 'Les Elements stoiciens dans la consolation grecque chretienne', in Studia Patristica, 13. Paperspresentedto the Sixth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 1971, Part 2, ed. E.A. Livingstone (Texte und Untersuchungen, 116; Berlin, 1975), 35-45 (chiefly on John
Chrysostom), and M.M. Wagner, 'A Chapter in Byzantine Epistolography: The Letters
of Theodoret of Cyrus', Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 4 (1948), 119-81, esp. 157-60.
5
The most serious omission is that of Augustine, for whose contribution see Favez, 'Les
Epistulae 92, 259 et 263 de S. Augustin', MH 1 (1944), 65-8, and M.M. Beyenka, Consolation in Saint Augustine (Catholic University of America Patristic Studies, 83;
Washington, DC, 1950), and 'Saint Augustine and the Consolatio Mortis', CBull 29
(1953), 25-8.
6
Jer. epist. 23, 39, 60, 66, 75, 77, 79, 108, 118, 127.
7
Ambr. epist. 15, 39.
8 Consolation could be a
significant element in funeral oratory. Around AD 300
Menander Rhetor distinguished three types of funeral speech: 6 TapauOiTu0l
x6qXo6yos,6
Consolation
TttlCtr(PosXoyoS, and q ijovuo8i (epid. 2.9, 11, 16 Russell-Wilson).
predominates in the first of these, and has a firm place too in the second; there is nothing
directly consolatory in the third. Though surviving speeches cannot easily be straitjacketed
into one or other of these categories, those of, for example, Gregory of Nazianzus on his
father and his brother Caesarius (orat. 18 and 7 respectively), or Gregory of Nyssa on
Theodosius I's wife Flacilla and daughter Pulcheria, have, like those of Ambrose, considerable consolatory content.
9 Paul. Nol.
epist. 13, carm. 31.
'0 Exhortation to bear the loss of a loved one in an appropriate way commonly accompanies consolation proper.
" For instance, Jer. epist. 108, the avowed purpose of which is to console the virgin
Eustochium on the death of her mother, Jerome's close friend Paula (108.2.2), has
negligible consolatory content; it is, rather, a eulogistic memoir of the deceased woman.
The same is true of epist. 127, which celebrates the praises of the widow Marcella; indeed,
a consolatory aim is here still less apparent.
12 In epist. 66 Jerome's principal concern is to praise his addressee, Pammachius, rather
than to comfort him for the loss of his wife Paulina; while in epist. 118 he takes the opportunity afforded by the deaths of the wife and two daughters of his correspondent, Julian,
to encourage him to adopt a new life of poverty. Likewise Augustine's main purpose in
epist. 259 is to urge the recently widowed Cornelius to give up his life of sexual promiscuity.
We might also include texts containing material which might be used in practical con13
soling, such as the first and third books of the Tusculan Disputations of Cicero, or
34
J.H.D. SCOURFIELD
Ambrose's treatise De bono mortis. It should not be forgotten, either, that consolation
could be offered on misfortunes other than bereavement, such as exile or illness.
14 It
belongs to AD 252 or 253 (see below, p. 23). The next of the group in
chronological sequence are the two speeches of Ambrose on the death of Satyrus (AD
378).
15
It is unmentioned in any of the works cited in n. 3 above. Its consolatory character
was, however, recognised by modern scholars before Favez; see esp. M.L. Hannan,
Thasci Caecili Cypriani De mortalitate: A Commentary with an Introduction and Translation (Catholic University of America Patristic Studies, 36; Washington, DC, 1933), pp.
v, 2-3, who properly drew attention to Pont. vita Cypr. 7.7. But Favez's book had the
effect of establishing a canon of Christian Latin consolatory writing, with the De mortalitate first in chronological sequence; so, most recently, the diachronic study of G. Guttilla, 'La fase iniziale della consolatio latina cristiana', ALCP 21-2 (1984-5), 108-215,
begins with the Cyprianic text.
16 A. Stuiber, 'Cyprianus I', in Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum, ed. T. Klauser
et al. (Stuttgart, 1950-), 3.463-6, at 465.
17 P. von Moos, Consolatio: Studien zur mittellateinischen Trostliteratur iiber den Tod
und zum Problem der christlichen Trauer (Miinstersche Mittelalter-Schriften, 3; 4 vols.,
Munich, 1971-2).
18 On this text see below,
p. 22.
19 Von Moos
(n. 17), 1.26-7 (C 23-4).
20 For the date of the
plague see below, p. 23.
21
In general Cyprian seems to prefer dilectissimi when addressing the laity, and carissimi
when addressing the clergy, though his practice is far from rigid; see M.G.E. Conway,
Thasci Caecili Cypriani De bono patientiae (Catholic University of America Patristic
Studies, 92; Washington, DC, 1957), 95-6.
22
Quotations are drawn from the text of M. Simonetti (CCSL 3A).
23
It is in the light of this passage, and the elaboration of it which follows, that we should
read the somewhat surprising comment later in the same chapter that the fears engendered
by the plague have had a positive effect in jolting lukewarm and lax Christians, apostates
and unbelievers, into the front line of the Christian army. While some doubtless
responded that way, the statement goes against the entire grain of mort. If, however, we
see it as being written in the same encouraging tone as the earlier part of the chapter (the
plague is a benefit not only because it frees Christians from the world, but because it
brings new and restores lapsed Christians to the fold of the Church), we will not be misled
into taking it too seriously. The idea that the Church has been strengthened by the addition of new Christians and old, who will fight, when battle comes, will have made some
kind of appeal to each individual's need for support and solidarity; but Cyprian is dealing
here more in rhetoric than in truth.
24
Wisd. 4: 11.
25
Cf. Jer. epist. 39.3.1, 60.2.1, 75.2.1, 79.2.4, Paul. Nol. epist. 13.6, Ambr. exc. Sat.
1.30, Theodoret, epist. 136 (Collectio Sirmondiana; Sources chretiennes, 111).
26
Cic. ad Brut. 1.9.2; cf. ad Att. 12.10.
27
Sen. dial. 6.7.1, 11.18.6, epist. 63.1, 99.16.
28
Theon 2.117.16-24 Spengel, [Dion. Hal.] rhet. 6.4, p. 281.8-12 Usener-Rademacher.
See too the sample letters of condolence in the treatises on epistolography by Demetrius
and pseudo-Libanius (Demetr. form. epist. 5, [Liban.] char. epist. 21, 62 Weichert).
THE DE MORTALITA TE OF CYPRIAN
35
29
For the permissibility of grief in moderation see e.g. (among many instances) Ambr.
exc. Sat. 2.1, 2.11, Jer. epist. 39.5.2, Paul. Nol. epist. 13.10, Aug. epist. 263.3, Bas. epist.
62, Greg. Naz. epist. 165.2, orat. 7.1, John Chrys. epist. 197, Theodoret, epist. 14 (Collectio Sirmondiana; Sources chretiennes, 98); for expression of sympathy, e.g. Ambr. epist.
15.1, Jer. epist. 60.1.1, 75.1.1, Bas. epist. 5.1, 29, 302 ad init., Greg. Naz. orat. 7.18,
John Chrys. epist. 192, Theodoret, epist. 136 (Collectio Sirmondiana; Sources chretiennes, 111). The element of lamentation often found in funeral orations may itself be
seen as a legitimator of grief.
30 The dilemma is expressed most sharply by Jerome at epist. 60.2.1-2; cf. Paul. Nol.
carm. 31.7-10, Sulp. Sev. epist. 2.7.
31
Cf. e.g. Jer. epist. 39.1.1, 60.7.1, 75.1.1, Ambr. epist. 39.5, obit. Valent. 46, Sulp.
Sev. epist. 2.7-8, (for pagan parallels) Sen. dial. 6.12.1, [Plut.] ad Apoll. 19 (11 E). The
bereaved might also grieve their own lot at having been left amid the evils of life, while
the deceased loved one enjoys the blessings of heaven; for this topic see e.g. Greg. Naz.
orat. 7.20, Jer. epist. 60.7.2, 108.30.2.
32
This is the normal view from the fourth century at least. In the second and third centuries a different (though not certainly dominant) eschatology is apparent, according to
which all departed souls, with a few special exceptions, remained in Hades until the
General Resurrection; on this see A. Stuiber, Refrigerium interim: die Vorstellungen vom
Zwischenzustand und die fruhchristliche Grabeskunst (Theophaneia: Beitrage zur
Religions- und Kirchengeschichte des Altertums, 11; Bonn, 1957), with the review of
J.M.C. Toynbee, JThS 9 (1958), 141-9, and more recently C.E. Hill, Regnum caelorum:
Patterns of Future Hope in Early Christianity (Oxford, 1992). But it is clear in mort. (and
elsewhere in Cyprian; see Hill, 143-53) that Cyprian regards heaven as being already open
to all faithful souls; see esp. cc. 5, 22, 24, 26, and also B. de Margerie, 'L'Interet theologique du "De mortalitate" de saint Cyprien', Sciences ecclesiastiques, 15 (1963), 199-211.
33
The whole position is made very clear in Jerome's homily on the story of the rich man
and Lazarus (hor. in Luc. 16: 19-31; CCSL 78.507-16), at 509.78-510.96 (reading paradisi
veritas <non> est at 95), 514.247-515.272.
34 So Jer.
epist. 39.4, 60.6 (on which see the explanatory comments of J.H.D. Scourfield, Consoling Heliodorus: A Commentary on Jerome, Letter 60 (Oxford, 1993), 122-4).
35
For the whole episode see John 11: 1-44; Jesus weeps at v. 35. It cannot be denied that
Jesus was weeping for a man who, in terms of the belief outlined above, could not have
been in heaven. But neither was Lazarus gone and lost to his loved ones for the rest of
their time on earth; and in any case, Jesus' action will, here as elsewhere, commonly have
been regarded as a model of right behaviour.
36
Ambr. exc. Sat. 1.10, Aug. epist. 263.3, Paul. Nol. epist. 13.4, Jer. epist. 60.7.2.
37
Jer. epist. 39.2.1.
38 Above,
p. 13.
39
Without seeking it out, I have found it at P. Monceaux, Histoire litteraire de l'Afrique
chretienne depuis les origines jusqu'a l'invasion arabe, 2. S. Cyprien et son temps (Paris,
1902), 307 (which seems to be the fons et origo), Hannan (n. 15), 12, R.J. Deferrari, Saint
Cyprian: Treatises (Fathers of the Church, 36; New York, 1958), 198 (who is plainly
dependent on Hannan), V. Saxer, Vie liturgique et quotidienne a Carthage vers le milieu
du IlIe siecle: le temoignage de saint Cyprien et de ses contemporains d'Afrique (Studi
di antichita cristiana, 29; Vatican City, 1969), 267, M. Spanneut, Tertullien et les premiers
moralistes africains (Paris, 1969), 95, as well as von Moos (n. 17), 1.27 (C 24).
36
40
J.H.D. SCOURFIELD
M.L. Colish, The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages (Studies
in the History of Christian Thought, 34-5; 2 vols., Leiden, 1985), 2.33-5.
41
Colish (n. 40), 2.34.
42
J. Fontaine, Aspects et problemes de la prose d'art latine au IIIe siecle: la genese des
styles latins chretiens (Lezioni Augusto Rostagni, 4; Turin, 1968), 158 n. 14. He is followed by M. Naldini, 'Note esegetiche al "De lapsis" di s. Cipriano', GIF9 (1978), 57-72,
at 57 n. 1.
43
H. Koch, Cyprianische Untersuchungen (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, 4; Bonn,
1926), 286-313 ('Cyprian und Seneca'). The links made by Koch between Cyprian and
Seneca 'ne sont pas tous absolument convaincants', wrote Fontaine (n. 42), with remarkable understatement. Less reserved is the judgement of Colish (n. 40), 2.34 with n. 85.
Considering only mort., I can accept the influence of Sen. dial. 1.4.5 'gubernatorem in
tempestate, in acie militem intellegas' on mort. 12 'gubernator in tempestate dinoscitur,
in acie miles probatur', and perhaps of dial. 10.12.6 'delicati animi languore' on mort.
1 'delicatae mentis ignavia'; but that is all.
44
Generalisation is always involved in this concept. We may speak of a climate of antiSemitism in Germany in the 1930s, or of sexual liberation in the West in the 1960s, or of
free enterprise in Britain and the United States in the 1980s; this does not mean that
everyone in those places at those times was anti-Semitic, sexually promiscuous, or committed to free-market economics, responding robotically to the prevailing trend. In the
case of the Church in the second and third centuries, a rigorous, Stoical strain is evident;
but this was not universal, and a Christian could take a more rigorous position on one
matter and a less rigorous one on another-Cyprian, for example, was strict (though
adaptive) on the question of reconciling the lapsed, but relaxed (though necessarily defensive) on the legitimacy of flight in time of persecution. And it would be foolish to suppose
that the views of individuals were always constant, and did not bend at times to circumstance.
45 See above,
p. 13.
46
Ps.-Cypr. epist. 4 (CSEL 3.3.274-82, from where the quotations below are drawn),
ps.-Jer. epist. 40 (PL 30.278-82). See also PL 33.1175-6, where the opening of the letter
appears among works falsely attributed to Augustine, the attribution in this case occurring
in a single manuscript, it seems.
47
Duhr (below, n. 48), 555-7, cites as a parallel a passage from a homily attributed to
Origen (but now ascribed with certainty to Gregory of Elvira), by which he claims the
author of the Turasius letter was influenced at this point (for the text of this homily see
A.C. Vega, S. Gregorii Eliberritani episcopi opera omnia primum collecta, 1 (Scriptores
ecclesiastici hispano-latini veteris et medii aevi, 12-15; Escorial, 1944), 73-83 (tract. 7); the
passage occurs at 79.4-7). But in fact a quite different explanation of Jesus' weeping is
given there, and a direct debt is most improbable.
48
J. Duhr, 'Une lettre de condoleance de Bachiarius (?)', RHE 47 (1952), 530-85.
49 G. de
Plinval, Pelage: ses ecrits, sa vie et sa reforme (Lausanne, 1943), 254 n. 3.
50
G.W. Clarke, 'The Epistles of Cyprian', in Auckland Classical Essays presented to
E.M. Blaiklock, ed. B.F. Harris (Auckland, 1970), 203-21, at 214 n. 12.
51
Von Moos (n. 17), 1.26-7 (C 23).
52
B. Melin, Studia in corpus Cyprianeum: commentatio academica (Uppsala, 1946),
211-32.
THE DE MORTALITA TE OF CYPRIAN
37
53
P. Schepens, 'L'Epitre "De singularitate clericorum" du pseudo-Cyprien', RecSR 12
(1922), 178-210, 297-327, and 13 (1923), 47-65.
54
They range as late as the eighth or ninth century; Dr Fell's suggested date of around
AD 1000 postdates the earliest extant manuscript. Melin (n. 52), 213-15, however, makes
clear that the work must be placed earlier than Caesarius of Aries (bishop from 502), who
draws on it in a letter to an abbess and her congregation. For the conjectures of various
scholars see Schepens (n. 53), 12.178-80, Koch (n. 43), 426-72 ('Zur pseudo-cyprianischen
Schrift De singularitate clericorum'), at 426-8, 472, R. Gryson, Les originesdu celibat
ecclesiastique: du premier au septieme siecle (Recherches et syntheses de sciences
religieuses, section d'histoire, 2; Gembloux, 1970), 195 n. 6.
55 See
esp. Dem. 2-3, 5, 23; the Christians were also held responsible for calamities other
than that of the plague (war, famine, drought).
56
For an excellent discussion of the Decian persecution see G.W. Clarke, The Letters
of St. Cyprian of Carthage (Ancient Christian Writers, 43-4, 46-7; 4 vols., New York,
1984-9), 1.21-39. This is a major work of scholarship, an invaluable tool for the study not
only of Cyprian's letters themselves but of the whole period covered by his episcopate.
57 For this view see Clarke
(n. 56), 1.26-8. The Jews will have been excepted; see Clarke,
1.24 with n. 117.
58
Other evidence makes it clear that Decius was seeking to consolidate his claim to
imperial power by appeal to tradition, and as it is most improbable that Christian numbers
had as yet grown to such an extent that Christianity appeared a serious menace to the
state, it seems sensible to locate the edict in this more general context: as demanding a
religious rally expressing old-fashioned Roman values. This need not mean that Christian
'atheism' did not feature in the thinking behind the edict, but on this view it is only one
aspect of the picture. For discussion see e.g. W.H.C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution
in the Early Church: A Study of a Conflict from the Maccabees to Donatus (Oxford,
1965), 404-6, Clarke (n. 56), 1.22-5, R. Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians (London, 1986),
450-4.
59
Cf. Euseb. hist. eccl. 6.39.1, (for the date) Liber pontificalis 21 (19 January), Martyrol. Hieron. (Acta sanctorum, Nov., 2.2, ed. H. Delehaye and H. Quentin (Brussels,
1931), 50) (20 January).
60
For the libellatici see esp. Cypr. laps. 27, epist. 55.13-14.
61
On the question of persecution under Gallus see Clarke (n. 56), 3.4-17.
62
Cf. mort. 15, 19, Dem. 12-13, 17, 21, 25. In Dem. particularly, Cyprian writes of
persecution as if it is a present reality rather than a future expectation; but his comments
are too unspecific to be convincing evidence that persecution was actually happening at
the time of writing, and in my view they are best read as expressing a belief that a phase
of persecution-which might not be continuously oppressive-was in progress. See further Clarke (n. 56), 3.7-8. It should also be recognised, however, that the Carthaginian
Christians were in all probability harassed by pagans who blamed them for the plague and
everything else (see above, n. 55), without this being associated with 'official' persecution.
63
Cf. Aur. Vict. Caes. 30, [Aur. Vict.] epit. 30, Eutr. 9.5, Jer. chron. aAbr. pp. 218-19
Helm, Oros. hist. 7.21.6, Zos. 1.26.2, Jord. Get. 104. There was also an outbreak under
Gallienus. For complete testimonia see Hannan (n. 15), 13-18, supplemented by Clarke
(n. 56), 3.154 n. 10.
64
The death of Decius' son Hostilianus at this time is attributed to the plague by Aur.
Vict. Caes. 30.2, [Aur. Vict.] epit. 30.2. Zosimus, on the other hand, holds that
38
J.H.D. SCOURFIELD
Hostilianus fell victim to Gallus' treachery (1.25.2); but the fact that his death could be
held to have been due to the plague is itself good evidence that the plague had arrived by
this time. For the date see C. Preaux, 'Trebonien Galle et Hostilianus', Aegyptus, 32
(1952), 152-7, at 155 n. 5 (not later than the end of October 251), J.F. Gilliam, 'Trebonianus Gallus and the Decii: III et I cos', in Studi in onore di Aristide Calderini e Roberto
Paribeni (3 vols., Milan, 1956-7), 1.305-11 (not later than the middle of August). M.M.
Sage, Cyprian (Patristic Monograph Series, 1; Philadelphia, 1975), 269 n. 1, following RE
8A.1988, maintains that the plague struck Rome in 250; but there are inadequate grounds
for accepting this date, and the coins bearing the legend APOLL(INI) SALUTARI, which
form the evidence cited by Sage in its support, were issued by Gallus, as the RE article
makes clear.
65 So e.g. E.W. Benson,
Cyprian: His Life, his Times, his Work (London, 1897), p. xxii,
Koch (n. 43), 140-8 ('Die Abfassungszeit der Schriften De mortalitate, Ad Demetrianum
und De opere et eleemoynsis'), at 141 (with the opinions of other scholars given at 140),
Hannan (n. 15), 3, G. Stramondo, Studi del 'De mortalitate' di Cipriano (Catania, 1964),
21-8 ('Data di composizione del "De mortalitate" '), at 28, Sage (n. 64), 381.
66
This possibility is recognised by such as Monceaux (n. 39), 303, Saxer (n. 39), p. viii,
and L. Duquenne, Chronologie des lettres de S. Cyprien: le dossier de la persecution de
Dece (Subsidia hagiographica, 54; Brussels, 1972), 160, all of whom, however, also
recognise the possibility of 252. A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis
Eusebius. Teil 2: Die Chronologie. Band 2: Die Chronologie der Litteratur von Irenaeus
bis Eusebius (Leipzig, 1904), 365, conservatively sets the work in the period 252-6.
67
68
mort. 2, 15, 25.
Dem. 3-5, 20, 23.
69
The arguments of Clarke (n. 56), 3.9-13, 213-14, 226, in favour of this dating (against
252) are persuasive; the likely month is May. For the notion of approaching persecution
and prediction of the apocalypse see esp. epist. 57.1.2, 5.1-2; 58.1.2, 2.1-2, 7.1. The connection between mort. and epist. 57 and 58 is also made by Clarke, 3.215-16, 228, and
by Stramondo (n. 65), 26-7, who, however, dates the letters (and thus mort.) to 252.
70
The date is fixed by epist. 59.6.1, with which see Clarke (n. 56), 3.244 n. 27.
71
Cf. epist. 43.1.2. I accept the standard view that it is to these presbyters that Pontius
refers at vita Cypr. 5.6.
72
Cypr. epist. 20.1.2 'nam sicut domini mandata instruunt, orto statim turbationis
impetu primo, cum me clamore violento frequenter populus flagitasset, non tam meam
salutem quam quietem fratrum publicam cogitans interim secessi, ne per inverecundam
praesentiam nostram seditio quae coeperat plus provocaretur', Pont. vita Cypr. 7-8.
Cyprian similarly defends his remaining in exile at epist. 7.1, 14.1.2. In fairness it should
be said that Cyprian may genuinely have believed that the Church at Carthage would be
better served by his withdrawal (as it may have been); but what is clear is that his flight
was suspect. For a favourable representation of his action see C. Favez, 'La fuite de saint
Cyprien lors de la persecution de Decius', REL 19 (1941), 191-201.
73
Cypr. epist. 8.
74
In epist. 43 Cyprian tells the Christian community at Carthage that he will be unable
to return to them from exile before Easter (43.1.2, 7.2); the next letter in chronological
sequence, epist. 44, is written from Carthage around the middle of the year, following the
disputed election of Cornelius as bishop of Rome (March 251) (see Clarke (n. 56),
2.223-4).
THE DE MORTALITA TE OF CYPRIAN
39
Cf. epist. 43.4.1.
For the whole situation see esp. Cypr. epist. 15-17, with Sage (n. 64), 211-15. I agree
with Sage, 213 n. 1, that the move to easy readmission of the lapsed may not have arisen
solely from self-interest and hostility to Cyprian. But on the assumption that the group
was essentially the same as that which later gathered around Felicissimus, and which
Cyprian identifies with the presbyters who opposed his election as bishop (see epist.
43.1-3), personal animus must have played a significant part. The extent of the lapsing
and the absence of Cyprian from the city afforded his opponents an opportunity they
could never have anticipated.
77
Cf. Cypr. epist. 18.1.2, 19.2.1, 20.3.1-2.
78
Cf. Cypr. epist. 8.3.1, 30.8.
79
Felicissimus first appears in Cypr. epist. 41; soon after, Cyprian has linked him with
his opponents in the presbyterate (epist. 43.1-3). For the date see Clarke (n. 56), 2.200,
211.
80
Cf. Cypr. epist. 43.2.2, 3.2, laps. 15-16.
81
Cf. Cypr. epist. 41.2.1.
82
Cf. Cypr. epist. 42.
83
For the condemnation of Felicissimus and the presbyters see Cypr. epist. 45.4.1 with
Clarke (n. 56), 2.242 n. 30, epist. 59.9.1. For the identification of the five presbyters with
those who opposed Cyprian's election to the episcopate see epist. 43.1-2. It is commonly
held that it was at this council that Cyprian delivered laps. and unit.eccl., though there
are reasons for thinking that this was not the case. It is also a vexed question whether
unit. eccl. was addressed principally to the situation in Rome following Cornelius' election
(for which see below) or to the threat of schism in Carthage; I incline to the latter view.
For discussion, with further bibliography, see Clarke, 2.301-3, Sage (n. 64), 231-2 (with
232 n. 1), 241 n. 4, 245 n. 2 (whose arguments are not always sound).
84
Cf. Cypr. epist. 55.17.3.
85
The strict position of the bishopless Roman church on the issue was communicated
to Cyprian in Cypr. epist. 30, of which Novatianus was the author (cf. Cypr. epist. 55.5).
Clarke (n. 56), 2.118, is right to point out that the views expressed in the letter, which is
written in the name of the presbyters and deacons of Rome, cannot with certainty be
regarded as the personal views of Novatianus; but in the light of his later position it would
seem that his own opinions can, if anything, only have been toned down.
86
See Sage (n. 64), 249-50. If the election did turn on the issue of the lapsed, it may be
that Novatianus' own views had indeed been diluted in Cypr. epist. 30 (see above, n. 85),
or else that they had hardened in the interim: for this suggestion see S.L. Greenslade,
Schism in the Early Church (2nd edn., London, 1964), 40-1.
87
For discussion of the whole episode see Sage (n. 64), 250-3.
88
See Sage (n. 64), 253-5.
89
Cf. Cypr. epist. 46, 49.
90
Cf. Euseb. hist. eccl. 6.43.2 (where Novatianus is mistakenly called Novatus).
9'
Cf. Cypr. epist. 59.9.1.
92
For the events surrounding the consecration, and Cyprian's concern about the faction
of Felicissimus and Fortunatus and the reliability of Cornelius as an ally, see Cypr. epist.
59, with Clarke (n. 56), 3.235-8.
93
Cf. Cypr. epist. 59.9.2.
94
See Clarke (n. 56), 3.213-14. A further point in favour of dating the amnesty to the
75
76
40
J.H.D. SCOURFIELD
Carthaginian council meeting of 253 rather than that of 252 is that the appointment of
Fortunatus as bishop and Felicissimus' journey to Rome, which followed the 252 council
(mentioned at Cypr. epist. 59.10.1), makes more sense in a context where the rug has not
yet been pulled from under lapsist feet by the easing of penitential conditions.
95
See Cypr. epist. 66, with Clarke (n. 56), 3.321-2 (for the date), 327 n. 10. But it is
impossible to be certain that Puppianus, whose attacks on him Cyprian seeks in this letter
to rebut, was a member of the lapsist group. However that may be, there is a tendency
in Cyprian scholarship to shorten the struggle which Cyprian had to wage with his
opponents. Thus Sage (n. 64), 264, is quite wrong to say that after the 251 council 'the
lapsists at home faded into obscurity since the bishop had undermined their position by
conceding to their demands'; or that when Felicissimus travelled to Rome in 252 he was
no longer a threat to Cyprian. The evidence points firmly the other way.
96
Cf. Pont. vita Cypr. 5.1, Cypr. epist. 43.1.2, 59.6.1. For the role of the laity in
episcopal elections see Clarke (n. 56), 2.178 n. 1.
97 See above, p. 23, with nn. 68-9, for Dem. and epist. 58 (epist. 57 is concerned with
approaching persecution but does not anticipate the imminent end of the world); also
unit. eccl. 16 (AD 251), epist. 59.7.1, 13.4, 18.3 (252), Fort. pref. 1. The date of Fort.
is uncertain, but it may well belong to 253, and thus perhaps be contemporary with epist.
58 and mort.; in support of this see e.g. Koch (n. 43), 149-210 ('Die Abfassungszeit der
Sprachsammlungen ad Fortunatum und ad Quirinum'), at 149-83, G. Alfoldy, 'Der
Heilige Cyprian and die Krise des romischen Reiches', Historia, 22 (1973), 479-501, at 486
n. 39, Clarke (n. 56), 3.227.
98
This is the commonly accepted dating; see e.g. Sage (n. 64), 382-3 (referring to the
work as the Testimonia). Recently C. Bobertz, 'An Analysis of Vita Cypriani 3.6-10 and
the Attribution of Ad Quirinum to Cyprian of Carthage', VChr 46 (1992), 112-28, has
argued against Cyprian's authorship of the Ad Quirinum, suggesting (as others have done)
that it should be ascribed to an earlier hand. The main difficulties which Bobertz identifies
in the standard attribution of this work to Cyprian are genuine; but they are susceptible
of other explanations. In any case, it is sufficient for my argument that Cyprian claimed
the Ad Quirinum as his, a claim established by the prefaces to books 1-2 and book 3 of
the work, the authenticity of which Bobertz does not dispute (unless there is a hint of some
such doubt, in relation to the book 3 preface, at 124 n. 18, where Bobertz does not make
his own views clear; the authenticity of the preface to books 1-2 is tacitly accepted at 125
n. 20).
99 The
passage is cited also at Fort. 13, epist. 58.10.2, in both cases in a context concerning persecution.
'00 Stuiber (n. 16), 465.
101 See above,
pp. 13 and 20-21.
102 Von Moos (n. 17), 2.7 (A
26), also reckons as consolatory Tert. castit. 1, and a letter
from Pius, bishop of Rome (d. c. 154), to Iustus of Vienne (MGH, Epistolae, 3.87 (Epist.
Vienn. 2)). But neither of these texts has anything to do with consolation (and the second
is apparently spurious in any case).
103 See
above, p. 13.
104
1
pp. 12-13.
The idea of death as a release from the saeculum (mort. 15, 20) can be seen as a Christian development of the common (and not only consolatory) notion of death as a release
from the miseries of human life generally (for instances see Scourfield (n. 34), 198-9); for
THE DE MORTALITATE OF CYPRIAN
41
death as an advance to a better state (mort. 22 'quis non ad meliora festinet?', where,
however, the idea is not used in a directly consolatory way) cf. Sen. dial. 6.24.5; the use
of words such as praemitti, praecedere, and proficisci (mort. 20) in expressing the notion
of dying is readily paralleled in pagan literature, consolatory and non-consolatory (see
Scourfield, 177); the essentially Christian topos that one should avoid grieving so as not
to give unbelievers an opportunity to call Christian faith into question finds pagan
parallels in cases where the consoland is urged not to grieve in case false conclusions are
drawn from that grief (so Sulpicius ap. Cic. adfam. 4.5.6, Sen. dial. 12.19.7). Other connections might be found, but none of great substance.
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg